Preview: a read-only copy of the forum. To post or reply, use the current forum.

Orvonton and the Milky Way

106 posts · 10 participants · started May 31, 2015, 6:07 PM

wentworthParticipant
Jun 5, 2015, 6:01 AM
Nigel

Thanks. That explains it.

Another thing; refer to your first diagram of Splandon (Milky Way) and other major sectors within Orvonton.

I contend that the shape of the superuniverse space level requires that the outer edge where Splandon is shown should be much thicker than the inner edge which is closer to Paradise. So Splandon should extend above and below the obscured zone–or at least more so than those major sectors at the inner (Paradise) end. As Splandon revolves around Uversa, and comes closer to Paradise, that thickness will decrease, and there will be “increased superimposition, layer upon layer” P168.12.

Is this in conformity with your theory? If so, does it alter what might be visible from Urantia?

William.
tasParticipant
Jun 5, 2015, 2:24 PM

George Park wrote:

In your May 31 post (#15175) your diagram has the Milky Way at the far left of Orvonton, and the other major sectors spread out to the right in a tear drop shape. I’m finding this hard to imagine, since there are several statements which unambiguously place Uversa (and the Milky Way) at (near) the physical center of the “ten trillion blazing suns” in Orvonton. The major sectors rotate around Uversa, which means they are in gravitational revolution about it; that is, Uversa is at the gravitational center of mass for all ten major sectors.

Hi George and others,

Are you familiar with this research from last year?:

http://phys.org/news/2014-03-astronomers-earth-universe-council-giants.html

“The Milky Way and Andromeda are encircled by twelve large galaxies arranged in a ring about 24-million light years across – this ‘Council of Giants’ stands in gravitational judgment of the Local Group by restricting its range of influence.”

“McCall says twelve of the fourteen giants in the Local Sheet, including the Milky Way and Andromeda, are “spiral galaxies” which have highly flattened disks in which stars are forming. The remaining two are more puffy “elliptical galaxies”, whose stellar bulks were laid down long ago. Intriguingly, the two ellipticals sit on opposite sides of the Council.”

tas
MaraParticipant
Jun 5, 2015, 3:45 PM
Thanks for the link, tas. I enjoyed it. On the video McCall shows the Milky Way, Andromeda and neighboring flattened disc galaxies within a 24 mly range of the Milky Way, and the Milky Way is depicted as a reference point near the center of that chunk of space. Each galaxy is depicted as an orb and is marked with a color – orange, red, yellow, or blue. The video is very short, maybe 30 seconds, but in it McCall briefly depicts the galaxies as flattened mini-milky-ways. I noticed the differences among the plane of each of the flattened galaxies relative to the others. On appearance the plane of each galaxy seems oddly arranged relative to its neighbors. And this caused me to wonder about the rotational centers of these galaxies and where the centers might be in the scheme of things?
George ParkParticipant
Jun 5, 2015, 8:20 PM
Hi tas,

Thanks for the note. I did hear about the Council of Giants just recently. I was initially intrigued, since the Milky Way is near the center of these galaxies. However, it does not appear to be possible for the other galaxies in this Council to rotate about the Milky Way, because they are not gravitationally bound to it. We know this because these other galaxies are subject to the universal expansion of space, and this only occurs when things are not bound together by gravity with enough force.

Our galaxy and Andromeda are part of a gravitationally bound structure called the Local Group. Because of this gravitational binding it is possible, though not yet demonstrated, that the galaxies in the Local Group could be rotating about Uversa, which is (relatively) near the Milky Way. Since there is no space expansion between the members of this group, they travel along together as a single coherent unit. This is a necessary requirement for whatever cosmic structure finally turns out to be Orvonton; our superuniverse orbits Paradise as a single coherent and enduring unit, as it follows the elliptical path of the superuniverse space level.

George
Nigel NunnParticipant
Jun 9, 2015, 4:29 PM
tas, thanks for pointing out this interesting data, Council of Giants.

Let’s see if we can turn it into a smoking gun

George, you wrote,

“I was initially intrigued, since the Milky Way is near the center of these galaxies. However, it does not appear to be possible for the other galaxies in this Council to rotate about the Milky Way, because they are not gravitationally bound to it. We know this because…”

On page 7 of McCall’s preprint ( abstract – Council Of Giants ) he writes:

“The Council appears to be in radial equilibrium with respect to the Local Group,”

His paper goes on to explain how unusual this arrangement is. But even more interesting is how McCall concludes the paper’s abstract:

“It appears that the development of the giants of the Local Sheet was guided by a pre-existing flattened framework of matter.”

With this as timely motivation, I’ve sketched out a UB version of what may be going on at the center of this “Council of Giants”. I’ll try to add this over the next few days.

Nigel
George ParkParticipant
Jun 10, 2015, 1:50 PM
Hi Nigel,

McCall’s observation that the galaxies in the Local Sheet are in “radial equilibrium with respect to the Local Group, because after correction for the Group’s translation, the mean of radially projected velocities is only −1 km/s” is consistent with previous studies. The Local Group is embedded near the center of the Local Sheet, which is 5 Mly thick and 46 Mly in diameter. In a 2008 paper R. Brent Tully found that all of the galaxies in the Local Sheet have a common “peculiar motion” away from what he calls the Local Void, which borders the Local Sheet. (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ…676..184T) Peculiar motion is motion through space, as opposed to proper motion, which is the motion of space due to space expansion.

McCall begins his vector analysis of peculiar motions relative to the Local Sheet by first removing their proper motions due to the expansion of space.

“For galaxies beyond the Local Group, the heliocentric velocity was corrected for local expansion using a value for the Hubble constant founded upon infrared observations of Cepheids and a period-luminosity relation anchored to the distance of M106.”

Galaxies beyond the Local Group have proper motions away from the Local Group because of space expansion. McCall uses 71.6 km/s/Mpc for the Hubble constant or 22 km/s for every million light-years. The closest galaxy in McCall’s list is NGC 5102, which is 10 Mly away. Space expansion gives it a proper motion of 220 km/s away from us. In a billion years, NGC 5102 will be about 10% further away than it is now, according to modern theory. This is not that long a time, since the Milky Way completes just 4 revolutions in a billion years. Because of the proper motion between the Local Group and the other galaxies in the Local Sheet, it does not seem possible for the Council of Giants to be in rotation about the Local Group or to persist as a single enduring whole over billions of years. But I could be missing something and would appreciate any thoughts you may have on this.

George
Nigel NunnParticipant
Jun 10, 2015, 7:31 PM
George, thanks for adding some rigour to my speculations!
Currently polishing up a set of graphics for the parallel discussion at UBRON
Hope to add more here over the next 24 hours.

Nigel
Nigel NunnParticipant
Jun 11, 2015, 5:21 PM
As we all know,

“within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision” (1109.3, 101:4.2)

I’m keen to get on with this revision. But if we’re going to revise the UB story, first we need to work out what that story is. Below is my attempt to describe what I understand this story to be, at least with regard to the seven superuniverses. Once we get this in place, we’ll have a target at which to start shooting holes.

But first, if you’re not familiar with what native astronomers have actually discovered, please begin by visiting these two links: (1) Chromoscope.net and (2) Council of Giants.

The “Chromoscope” link shows our current best views of our own back yard (the Milky Way) at all wavelengths. The “Council of Giants” link points to a recent preprint by Marshall L. McCall about a surprising distribution embedded in our local sheet. On page 7 of McCall’s paper, he writes:

[MM] “The Council appears to be in radial equilibrium with respect to the Local Group,”

His paper goes on to explain how unusual this arrangement is. But even more interesting for us is how McCall concludes the paper’s abstract:

[MM] “It appears that the development of the giants of the Local Sheet was guided by a pre-existing flattened framework of matter.”

This “pre-existing flattened framework of matter” is something I believe the UB predicts. But the introduction I sketch below is not so much concerned with this flattened annular belt (within which McCall’s 14 giant galaxies formed), but with the mysterious tiny kernel lurking at their gravitational center, about 1 million light years away from us, through Sagittarius.

( continued … )

Nigel
Nigel NunnParticipant
Jun 11, 2015, 5:22 PM
( continued from previous post )

Apart from the existence of Paradise, the bestowal of space, etc., UB cosmology includes three factors not yet fully accounted for by native astronomers:

(1) the organized motion of emergent energies along space paths of lessened resistance to motion;

(2) the effect of the ( absolute ) mass of vast pools of ultimata that form within these flows of emergent energies;

(3) the phenomenon of a linear attraction between associations of clusters of ultimatons.

The combined effect of (#1) and (#2) may be responsible for what cosmologists now call “the cosmic web”, the apparent tendency of superclusters to form along sheets and shells of pre-existing over-densities of emergent energies (dark mass).

The second (#2) may explain the effect approximated by Einstein’s gravity, while (#3) becomes that component of total gravity (absolute + linear) that keeps researchers interested in modified Newtonian schemes. Let’s keep these factors in mind as we consider what the UB calls “the seven superuniverses”.

To paraphrase UB (215.3, 19:1.6), to understand the reality that science is beginning to measure requires that we understand the origin, history, and destiny of the material creation. So let’s go way back. Back before any galaxies had formed, back before those 21 “Ancients of Days” stepped out from Havona, right back to when the motions of space were defined, and those space paths of “lessened resistance to motion” were set up.

In particular, the superuniverse space level:

[See figure 1: http://www.ubron.org/groupphotos/Weyl_01.jpg%5D

[See figure 2: http://www.ubron.org/groupphotos/Weyl_02.jpg%5D

To cosmologists, a preferred direction in space (e.g. Isle of Paradise) implies Weyl curvature which, given time, distorts spherical distributions into ellipsoidal shapes. I suggest that given (i) Paradise, (ii) a co-planar, annular, grand universe distribution of ultimata, and (iii) a trillion years or so, something like figure 3 is what relativistic physics would predict. I’d have to dust off the textbooks to model this correctly, but you get the idea:

[See figure 3: http://www.ubron.org/groupphotos/Weyl_03.jpg%5D

Given the above precursors, I’ve modeled the (relatively tiny) grand universe set of “superuniverses” as flattened and perturbed ellipsoids, what someone called a teardrop shape:

[See figure 4: http://www.ubron.org/groupphotos/Weyl_04.jpg%5D

Notice how the UB story starts at the hypothetical beginning of finite activation, with vast flows of emergent energies, perturbed by superfluid vortices and the rotational movement of “mighty-tensioned” masses of ultimata, eventually leading to the appearance of measurable atomic matter.

On the other hand, native cosmology by necessity has to work backwards: given a distribution of atoms, stars and galaxies, we try to fit gravitational models to the data, then build a cosmology consistent with those ideas about gravitational interaction. But if those ideas about gravitational interaction are wrong, or if we leave out underlying motions of space and motions through space, how can we expect native science to come up with a valid cosmology?

I hope this prequel helps to explain those mysterious pics in this earlier post (15175).

Please point out errors and inconsistencies, and ask about what doesn’t make sense.

Personally, I think the next step is to consider what such a “superuniverse space level” would look like when viewed from our “3rd rock from the Sun”.

What do you think?

Nigel

PS: given that fundamental research has hit a brick wall (see Crisis at the Edge of Physics), this sort of UB speculation seems far less bizarre that what the mainstream is already prepared to tolerate.

NN
George ParkParticipant
Jun 11, 2015, 10:04 PM
Hi Nigel,

You give us quite a theoretically sophisticated model. Clearly, you have put a lot of thought into it. Your short description of the origin and history of the grand universe is persuasive. Your point about the inadequacy of our current understanding of gravity is undeniable. Ever since the 1970s no one has been able to come up with a satisfying gravitational theory capable of explaining the “rotation curves” of galaxies. Physicists know there is something wrong with the inverse square law of gravitational attraction, but no one has yet come up with a better one. Hence, the hypothesis of an unobservable dark matter which would add the needed mass to galaxies to explain their “rotation curves” in terms of Newton’s law. Modern physics does not even suspect the existence of absolute gravity, a completely new law of gravity revealed in The Urantia Book.

If I understand your model correctly, the Milky Way is one of ten major sectors in Orvonton. The other 9 major sectors in Orvonton are planar structures, similar to the Milky Way, and they are co-planar with the Milky Way. Because of this arrangement, these other 9 sectors are concealed behind the stars and dust in the plane of the Milky Way, which forms a “line of obscuration.” My initial question is about the observability of these other major sectors in Orvonton.

If these other 9 sectors are unobservable, because they are hidden behind the wall of stars formed by the plane of the Milky Way, why are we told that 8 of them were already identified in 1934?

“Of the ten major divisions of Orvonton, eight have been roughly identified by Urantian astronomers. The other two are difficult of separate recognition because you are obliged to view these phenomena from the inside.” (15:3.4)

“Better methods of space measurement and improved telescopic technique will sometime more fully disclose the ten grand divisions of the superuniverse of Orvonton; you will at least recognize eight of these immense sectors as enormous and fairly symmetrical star clusters.” (41:3.10)

We are cautioned more than once not to treat these teachings as infallible. We are explicitly told that its cosmology is not inspired. However, saying that 8 major sectors were “roughly identified” by astronomers in 1934 is a simple statement of historical fact. It is either true or false. Accepting it as true means that these 8 major sectors were actually observed and catalogued in the 1930s. From 1917 to 1948 the 100-inch telescope at Mount Wilson (where Hubble worked) was the most powerful in the world. Since it was limited to the visible spectrum of light and it could observe these other major sectors, they cannot be located behind the blazing suns forming the plane of the Milky Way.

I have found instances before where my interpretations of two different statements in the Book about the same thing appear to conflict. Besides the citations you have given, are there any other statements in the Book which lead you to conclude that the 9 other major sectors in Orvonton are hidden by the “line of obscuration?”

George
MaraParticipant
Jun 16, 2015, 8:12 PM
I found an interesting map of the Milky Way, the most accurate they, showing it as a four-armed spiral.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4612
George ParkParticipant
Jun 22, 2015, 7:40 PM
Hi,

Nigel wrote,

Personally, I think the next step is to consider what such a “superuniverse space level” would look like

This seems like a good next step. I have found eight papers published between 1966 and 2014 attempting to identify what Orvonton is. They each present carefully-considered but different reasons for why Orvonton is as small as the Milky Way galaxy and as large as the Virgo Supercluster, which contains 1,000 Milky Ways. One way to advance beyond these interpretational differences is to test how these various ideas about Orvonton fit into the superuniverse space level, the next higher level of universe structure.

Revelation presents a fairly clear and stable concept of the internal structure of the grand universe. Orvonton’s parts are in gravitational rotation about Uversa at its center. At the same time Uversa revolves about Paradise in the superuniverse space level. Orvonton is one of seven similar superuniverses, and all of their centers follow the same orbital path around Paradise.

Each superuniverse is simply a geographic space clustering of approximately one seventh of the organized and partially inhabited post-Havona creation, and each is about equal in the number of local universes embraced and in the space encompassed. (12:1.12)

The volume of space and the number of galaxies in each superuniverse are one-seventh of the totals in the grand universe. So the superuniverse space level is evenly divided into seven pie-shaped space sectors, where each sector spans a little more than 51 degrees as measured from Paradise (360/7). Everything in Orvonton is contained within the boundaries of its sector. This plus the detailed descriptions in Paper 15, section 1, give us a fairly good idea of how Orvonton fits into the superuniverse space level.

Figure 1:

Since Orvonton’s galaxies are rotating around Uversa, Uversa must be at the center of a sector that spans one-seventh of the grand universe. Simple trigonometry then places the center of the grand universe, the location of Paradise, at a distance equal to 2.3 times the radius of Orvonton. The far border between superuniverses 3 & 4 is at a distance of 5.6 times the radius of Orvonton. These revealed ratios allow us to test different ideas about what Orvonton is. For instance, if Orvonton is the Local Group, which has a radius of about 4 Mly (million light-years), then Paradise should be 9.2 Mly distant, and the other superuniverses should all be within about 22.4 Mly.

A search of the scientific literature yields no structures consistent with this description of the superuniverse space level. However, it is relatively simple to query NASA’s Extragalactic Database for everything within 36 Mly to see what is out there. This database is the authoritative worldwide master list of objects beyond the borders of the Milky Way. Doing so reveals an enormous belt of galaxies in the sky – what we might logically call the Superuniverse Wall.

Figure 2:

A 2008 composite photograph of the stars in the plane of the Milky Way runs horizontally through the middle of this (equirectangular) whole-sky plot. As of 2010, there were 8,450 galaxies (nebulae) within 36 Mly. More than half of these are densely concentrated in an elongated belt arcing across the sky. This belt is bisected by a red line, which follows the path of a great circle across the sky. This great circle defines a flat plane – the gravitational plane of the grand universe – which is tilted to the galactic plane at an angle of 61 degrees. It appears curved because it is mapped using the spherical coordinate system of galactic longitude and latitude, which is based upon the plane of the Milky Way. (see post #15233 for details) A spherical coordinate system based upon the gravitational plane of the grand universe would show the Superuniverse Wall as a long straight belt of galaxies.

(continued in 2^nd post due to space limitations)
George ParkParticipant
Jun 22, 2015, 7:43 PM
(continuation of post #15593)

Figure 3:

Instead of looking at the Superuniverse Wall as it appears on the 2-dimensional surface of the celestial sphere, we can plot the 8,450 galaxies within 36 Mly in 3-dimensions. We can then look down on the gravitational plane of the grand universe, as it is defined by the Superuniverse Wall, from a position directly above Uversa (the blue 4-point star at the center). The blue circle surrounding Uversa is the border of Orvonton 4 Mly away. Exactly 7 superuniverses the size of Orvonton fit along an orbit that passes exactly over Uversa, consistent with the revealed model. The location of Paradise at the geometric center 9 Mly away is shown by the light blue dot, again close to the predicted value of 9.2 Mly. We are told that the central universe is hidden from view behind a wall of dark gravity bodies. The absence of any galaxies within several hundred thousand light-years of Paradise’s location is consistent with the revealed model. There are several more significant tests arising from this revealed model which this cosmic structure successfully satisfies.

The consistency of this cosmic structure with the revealed internal structure of the grand universe is reasonably conclusive empirical confirmation that Orvonton is the Local Group and that this cosmic structure is the superuniverse space level. Finding the orbit of the seven superuniverses makes it possible to identify the universe location of the Eternal Isle of Light for the first time.

An obvious question is why this structure has not been identified previously. Almost all of the galaxies in the Superuniverse Wall were identified and catalogued by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, which did not begin publishing its results until a little over a decade ago. This systematic survey has identified hundreds of millions of new galaxies. Astronomers simply have not had the time or the inclination to examine how the few thousand new galaxies within 36 Mly found by the SDSS are organized in the so-called Local Volume.

This is an extremely brief account of a significant confirmation of the cosmology in The Urantia Book. A lot of things are left unaddressed, and I would be happy to answer any questions about this finding.

George
MaraParticipant
Jun 23, 2015, 1:20 AM
I’m trying to see where we are at, relative to your fascinating map and in light of these remarks.

P.359 – §8 The Satania system of inhabited worlds is far removed from Uversa and that great sun cluster which functions as the physical or astronomic center of the seventh superuniverse. From Jerusem, the headquarters of Satania, it is over two hundred thousand light-years to the physical center of the superuniverse of Orvonton, far, far away in the dense diameter of the Milky Way. Satania is on the periphery of the local universe, and Nebadon is now well out towards the edge of Orvonton. From the outermost system of inhabited worlds to the center of the superuniverse is a trifle less than two hundred and fifty thousand light-years.

It seems there is another 50 light years (plus or minus) beyond (the center of?) Satania to get to the “edge” of Orvonton. If the radius of Orvonton is 250,000 light years, then twice that gets you only half a million light years, side to side, if it were spherical.

George Park wrote: The blue circle surrounding Uversa is the border of Orvonton 4 Mly away.

I don’t get the 4 Mly part. Uversa to Paradise? What is one Mly? I hate to be so dumb.
George ParkParticipant
Jun 23, 2015, 12:16 PM
Hi Mara,

“Mly” is an abbreviation for “million light-years,” which I should have spelled out. Uversa is at the center of Orvonton and is shown as the 4-point blue star at the center of the overhead view of the grand universe (Figure 3). We are between 200 and 250 thousand light-years distant from Uversa, (P.359 – §8) which puts us near the center of this map. The Milky Way is also near the center of this map and is a galaxy that is a member of what astronomers call the Local Group. It is supposed here that Orvonton is the Local Group. Astronomers estimate that everything within 4 million light-years is part of the Local Group. The light blue dot is the location of Paradise, which is 9 million light-years away.

Hope this helps.

George
MaraParticipant
Jun 23, 2015, 6:29 PM
Greatly so, George. Thanks!
Nigel NunnParticipant
Jun 23, 2015, 8:48 PM
George – thanks for giving us a glimpse of your work! Regarding current astronomy and the UB’s first outer space level, I think your research will serve as a robust starting point for future studies. But regarding the superuniverse space level of the original and ancient grand universe, I’d like us to take a fresh look.

Referring back to this picture: http://www.ubron.org/groupphotos/Weyl_03.jpg

I’d like to propose that what actually locks the 7 superuniverses onto Paradise is not the trivial perturbation of linear gravity (as apparently assumed by UB astronomers), but a combination of the following:

(1) the enormous density of emergent energies moving in a pre-defined elliptical “space path of lessened resistance to motion” around Paradise,

(2) the absolute mass of an annular belt of ultimata that formed within this space path of emergent energy (an effectively homogenous condensate),

(3) the action within this condensate of an “ultimatonic Higgs mechanism”.

Now, when they say:

“Each superuniverse is simply a geographic space clustering of approximately one seventh of the organized and partially inhabited post-Havona creation, …” (129.10, 12:1.12)

I have in mind one seventh of this annular belt of ultimata. Also, that it is within this moving annular belt of absolute mass that superfluid vortices were induced by Force Organizers to evolve into spirals of baryonic matter. And that all this happened when the outer space levels were nothing but a gleam in a Master Architect’s eye.

What I like about this scheme is that we can simply plug in so much of current physics: think of how the action of Weyl curvature (please see this link) must have shaped these seven partitions, and how the Brout-Englert-Higgs mechanism (Nobel 2013 – Physics ) can be so neatly explained by the interaction of clusters of huddling ultimatons…

Before going on, to help warm up the imagination, here’s an indication of what the trillion stars of M31 (Andromeda) might look like if rotated edge on. Imagine dropping something a bit smaller, a bit more compact into the superuniverse plane, centered say 150,000 light years through galactic longitude 30 degrees:

Please recall that I began this adventure by asking, with regard to cosmology: “What IS the UB story, and what statements ‘may stand in need of revision’ ?” My speculation about these early days of the grand universe is simply my literal understanding of what the UB appears to describe.

If my assumptions are wrong, please say so If revision is required, then let’s explore, and collaborate!

Our mission, if we choose to accept it, …

Nigel

( continued… )
Nigel NunnParticipant
Jun 23, 2015, 9:01 PM
( continued from previous post )

The story so far has been about the multi-trillion year ancestry of the superuniverse space level of the so-called “grand universe”, a time far preceding the evolution of galaxies in the “outer space levels”. As the story unfolds, this “grand universe” begins to serve as a central (and relatively tiny) nucleus of an absolutely ultimate and enormous “master universe”. How to estimate the spacelike size of the (absolutely ultimate) master universe is unclear, but in this current scheme, using time-dependent telescopes (electromagnetic wavelength as “cycles per second”), we might think of this central “grand universe” (Havona + seven superuniverses) as having a spacelike radius of less than two million light years.

Compare this with what the UB calls “the first outer space level”:

“But about one-half million light-years beyond the periphery of the present grand universe we observe the beginnings of a zone of an unbelievable energy action which increases in volume and intensity for over twenty-five million light-years. These tremendous wheels of energizing forces are situated in the first outer space level, a continuous belt of cosmic activity encircling the whole of the known, organized, and inhabited creation.” (129.12, 12:1.14)

If we imagine this first outer space level as being centered on Paradise and extending out to a radius of say 50 million light years, then we can see how the central “grand universe” is completely dwarfed by this first ring of evolutionary activities. Now, if we go on and try to imagine the 2nd, 3rd and 4th outer space levels, notice how this central “grand universe” becomes increasingly and vanishingly small.

Let’s see if we can put this in perspective. The 4 diagrams in post-15367 showed a “plan view”, as seen from above. Someone asked about a side view and that “Maltese Cross”, so the next four (figures 5 to 8) switch to a side view or cross section.

First up is a crude sketch of relationships revealed about Havona, the “eternal core of perfection” (see paper 14: The Central and Divine Universe).

[See figure 5: http://www.ubron.org/groupphotos/UBCosm_01.jpg%5D

Next I try to show the multi-trillion-year prehistory of an evolutionary superuniverse, involving the conversion of space potency (ABSOLUTA) into primordial force (SEGREGATA), then various phases of emergent-energy (ULTIMATA) and finally, universe power (GRAVITA).

[See figure 6: http://www.ubron.org/groupphotos/UBCosm_02.jpg%5D

This next sketch tries to hint at spacelike relationships at the absonite core of that famous “Maltese Cross” (124.4, 11:7.3). Such a conception may be wildly misleading, but it does serve as a starting point for discussion

[See figure 7: http://www.ubron.org/groupphotos/UBCosm_03.jpg%5D

And finally, figure 8 is a placeholder for that same “Maltese Cross”.

[See figure 8: http://www.ubron.org/groupphotos/UBCosm_04.jpg%5D

[Edit]: I’ve removed this “place-holder”. If the concept of an “inconceivably large, V-shaped plane” (124.6, 11:7.5) rotated about Paradise is really a projection of a projection of “a seven-dimensional universe” (1439.5, 130:7.7), then my glyph must only confound the confusion (!)

For me, the issue here is how we are to conceive of the distinction between pervaded and non-pervaded space. For mathematicians (not so much for astronomers), “logic dictates” that both the pervaded and non-pervaded spaces are distinct 3-manifolds which, together with the midspace zones, make up the sort of 7 dimensional universe Jesus was talking about to that Mithraic priest at Carthage:

“It must be apparent that universal reality has an expanding and always relative meaning on the ascending and perfecting levels of the cosmos. Ultimately, surviving mortals achieve identity in a seven-dimensional universe.” (1439.5, 130:7.7)

With all the above diagrams in place, my question is: do these relationships, suggested by the Urantia Book, offer anything that might help us to explain, or even to extend, the two “standard models” that native science has evolved — the standard model of cosmology, and the standard model of particle physics?

Regarding the Milky Way and Orvonton, I think what we really need is a 3d fly-through …

Nigel
George ParkParticipant
Jun 24, 2015, 3:38 PM
Hi Nigel,

The graphics you have created are quite helpful in visualizing your model. Assuming I understand the basics of this model correctly, I find I have a number of questions.

1) In post #15175 you place Andromeda in the first outer space level. This level revolves clockwise, while the superuniverse space level revolves counterclockwise. This will cause Andromeda and the Milky Way to become separated from one another over time; eventually, Andromeda will be on one side of the grand universe and the Milky Way will be on the opposite side. How can this be reconciled with astronomy’s empirical finding that Andromeda is gravitationally bound to the Milky Way? Are you proposing that current astronomy is incorrect in its concept of the Local Group as an enduring cosmic structure?

2) There are numerous statements in the Book which directly state or imply that the major sectors of Orvonton are observable. “Of the ten major divisions of Orvonton, eight have been roughly identified by Urantian astronomers.” (15:3.4) In your model only the Milky Way (Splandon) is observable, because the other 9 are concealed behind the stars and dust making up the plane of the Milky Way. What statements in the Book support this idea of their arrangement?

3) In your Figure 2 in post #15367 you show the other six superuniverses as being concealed behind the “line of avoidance,” which also makes them unobservable.

“Although your spectroscopic estimations of astronomic velocities are fairly reliable when applied to the starry realms belonging to your superuniverse and its associate superuniverses, such reckonings with reference to the realms of outer space are wholly unreliable.” (12:4.14)

The use of the present tense in this 1934 statement clearly implies that the spectra of some galaxies in other superuniverses have been optically observed and their “fairly reliable” velocities estimated. In this case, these galaxies are not hidden behind the “line of avoidance.” What are your reasons for concluding that they are?

4) Since the four outer space levels are concentrically arranged about Paradise in the same plane – the plane of creation – they are also unobservable in your model. This raises a larger issue. Scientific theories are useful to the extent they are able to explain things we can see and quantify. If the organization of the physical universe (apart from the Milky Way) is not observable, what visible material phenomena does this model explain? How can this theoretical explanation be empirically tested against physical evidence for validity, like other scientific theories? What unique prediction does it make, or explanation does it give, which distinguishes it as a superior scientific model of the universe?

George
wentworthParticipant
Jun 25, 2015, 7:18 AM
Hi Nigel and George

It seems that both of you have interesting theories which are incompatible.

George’s theory postulates that Orvonton is constituted of the local group, which is more than an order of magnitude too big for the distances given in the revelation.

Nigel’s theory cannot explain how the astronomers of the 1930s could have identified eight of the ten major sectors.

Where can you both take us from here?

Reply on the current forum